1. No, A is not qualified to become an ARB over the tenanted portion of the land under CARP.

Under Section 22 of RA 6657, qualified beneficiaries pertain to landless residents of the brgy or
municipality where the land is located, in the order of priority as provided in this section.
Moreover, under Section 25 of the same law, a landless person is defined as someone who owns
less than 3 hectares of agricultural land. In the instant case, A is already a holder of a CLOA over
a 3-hectare land, which therefore excludes him from being landless and consequently from
being a qualified beneficiary under the law.

2. No, the petition will not prosper. Under Section 50 of RA 6657, as amended by RA 9700, the DAR
is vested with the power to punish direct and indirect contempts in the same manner as
provided in the Rules of Court. Thus, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, as held in LBP vs Listana Sr.,
provides the two ways by which a person may be charged with indirect contempt, to wit; (1)
upon an order or formal charge initiated motu propio by the court or quasi-judicial body and (2)
upon a verified petition. Moreover, pursuant to Section 12 of this Rule, verified petitions for
indirect contempt must be filed with the RTC where the contempt was committed. In the instant
case, the charge of indirect contempt against the lessor was by virtue of a petition filed by the
lessee, and not upon PARAD’s motu propio action. Hence, the indirect contempt petition must
be filed with the RTC, as the PARAD has no jurisdiction over the same.

Alternative Answer (based on Atty’s response):

Yes, the petition will prosper. Under Section 50 of RA 6657, as amended by RA 9700, the DAR is
vested with the power to punish direct and indirect contempts in the same manner as provided
in the Rules of Court. Section 99 of the 2021 DARAB Rules, therefore, lifted the procedural
manner as provided under Section 4 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, vesting jurisdiction upon
the Board/RARAD/PARAD over verified petitions of indirect contempt. Section 12 of Rule 71,
therefore, is rendered inapplicable insofar as the law (DARAB Rules in consonance with RA 6657)
provides otherwise.

3. Yes, the petition may prosper. Under PD 1529, a land registration proceeding is deemed an in
rem proceeding, whereby notice by publication, mailing and even posting within the subject
land is provided to give notice to any adverse claimant and to the whole world. Laches,
meanwhile, pertains to the failure or neglect to exercise a right, on account of lack of due
diligence, within a reasonable time. From the given facts, C caused the titling of the subject land
way back in 1989 or 32 years prior, in which a notice for any adverse claim from any party was a
condition sine qua non before the grant of title. A, being a tenant at that time, is presumed to
have been put on notice, as posting within the subject land must have been effected prior to the
issuance of title. Thus, absence any proof of fraud, failure to raise the adverse claim of A at that
time is an abandonment of his right over the land and constitutes laches.